Analyzing Time Use
There are four dominant approaches to collecting data on time allocation:
1) Stylized questions:
Three types of stylized questions are common in the household division of labor literature: task inventories that determine what specific tasks are done, the frequency with which they are done, and who generally does the task; direct questions measuring the proportional division of time husbands and wives spend on various tasks; and direct questions measuring the amount of time spent on various tasks (Marini and Shelton 1993). The first two have been used primarily in studies that have examined only nonmarket labor, and usually only housework.
Direct questions on the amount of time in market and nonmarket activities have been used to measure market and nonmarket labor. Questions about market labor generally take the form of asking the respondent to report their usual hours of paid employment per week, and their usual weeks worked per year. The combination of these two questions allows estimates of yearly hours of paid employment to be calculated. Surveys such as the Current Population Survey, the National Survey of Families and Households, and the Panel Study of Income Dynamics include questions of this nature. Questions about nonmarket labor generally ask the respondent to report either the time spent on all household labor over a typical week (such as in the Panel Study of Income Dynamics), or the time spent on specific household tasks over a typical week (such as in the National Survey of Families and Households). Most studies separate housework tasks from child care tasks (although some earlier studies such as the 1977 Quality of Employment Survey have combined housework and child care measures), and some ask only about housework activities (Marini and Shelton 1993). Additionally, none of the surveys include questions about time allocated to leisure activities.
2) Time diaries:
Time diaries act like a “social microscope” into human behavior. The are open-ended, allowing respondents to describe in their own words what they were doing throughout the day. With time diaries, respondents typically record all activities in which they participated over a 24 hour period, providing more information than stylized questions or experiential sampling studies. The “heart of the diary,” is a verbatim accounting of a day’s activities, including when the activity began and ended (Stinson 1999). The nature of the diaries also allows for respondents to report if they are engaged in more than one activity at a time, designating what the most important activity was during that time frame. (Robinson 2000). Time diaries may also ask for details on where the activity occurred, and who else was present during the activity.
There are different methods of administering time diaries. The first consists of a paper diary left behind for the respondent to complete after an initial face-to-face interview. With paper diaries, the 24-hour reference period is usually the day after the interview; interviewers then visit the household again to check and collect the diaries. Time diaries may also be collected via a computer-assisted telephone interview; in this case the 24-hour reference period consists of a retrospective accounting of “yesterday’s” activities.
Studies that have compared the different methods of administering time diaries have found that the method makes little difference in terms of the quality of the data. This finding propelled the shift from paper “tomorrow” diaries to “yesterday” diaries collected via computer-assisted telephone interviews (Juster 1985; Juster and Stafford 1991; Robinson and Godbey 1999; Stinson 1999). Robinson (1985) assessed the reliability of time diary estimates in three ways: 1) by comparing diary entries from the 788 Jackson, Michigan respondents who formed a sub-sample of the 1965-66 Americans’ Use of Time Project, to diary entries from the 1,244 respondents who comprised the national 1965-66 sample; 2) by comparing diary estimates from 1965-66 respondent yesterday diaries and tomorrow diaries; and 3) by comparing diary estimates from the 1965-66 sample to diary estimates from Walker’s (1969) 1968-69 study conducted in Upstate New York, and Chapin’s (1974) 1968-69 study conducted in the Washington D.C. area. Robinson (1985) reports substantial similarity in time use patterns for all three comparisons, although the tomorrow diaries did include between 5 to 10 percent more activities as compared to the yesterday diaries.
3) The experience sampling method (ESM):
ESM studies randomly beep or page respondents multiple times per day; respondents then report what activity they were involved in, and typically also report who else was present during the activity, and what they were thinking or feeling during the activity. ESM studies may continue over the period of one day, a week, or months (National Research Council 2000). ESM requires a very large sample to yield generalizable results, does not provide information on an individual’s total allocation of time use, and is more costly than other methods.
4) Direct observation:
Direct observation, while offering a more “dynamic” accounting of time use, is intrusive, and generally covers only a small, non-random sample of individuals.
The latter two methods may provide more accurate, objective reports of time use because they do not rely on the respondent’s memory of activities; however, both are used infrequently. Consequently, stylized questions and time diaries are the more common methods for assessing time use (Juster 1985; Robinson and Godbey 1999).
Direct observation, while offering a more “dynamic” accounting of time use, is intrusive, and generally covers only a small, non-random sample of individuals.
The latter two methods may provide more accurate, objective reports of time use because they do not rely on the respondent’s memory of activities; however, both are used infrequently. Consequently, stylized questions and time diaries are the more common methods for assessing time use (Juster 1985; Robinson and Godbey 1999).
1) Stylized questions:
Three types of stylized questions are common in the household division of labor literature: task inventories that determine what specific tasks are done, the frequency with which they are done, and who generally does the task; direct questions measuring the proportional division of time husbands and wives spend on various tasks; and direct questions measuring the amount of time spent on various tasks (Marini and Shelton 1993). The first two have been used primarily in studies that have examined only nonmarket labor, and usually only housework.
Direct questions on the amount of time in market and nonmarket activities have been used to measure market and nonmarket labor. Questions about market labor generally take the form of asking the respondent to report their usual hours of paid employment per week, and their usual weeks worked per year. The combination of these two questions allows estimates of yearly hours of paid employment to be calculated. Surveys such as the Current Population Survey, the National Survey of Families and Households, and the Panel Study of Income Dynamics include questions of this nature. Questions about nonmarket labor generally ask the respondent to report either the time spent on all household labor over a typical week (such as in the Panel Study of Income Dynamics), or the time spent on specific household tasks over a typical week (such as in the National Survey of Families and Households). Most studies separate housework tasks from child care tasks (although some earlier studies such as the 1977 Quality of Employment Survey have combined housework and child care measures), and some ask only about housework activities (Marini and Shelton 1993). Additionally, none of the surveys include questions about time allocated to leisure activities.
2) Time diaries:
Time diaries act like a “social microscope” into human behavior. The are open-ended, allowing respondents to describe in their own words what they were doing throughout the day. With time diaries, respondents typically record all activities in which they participated over a 24 hour period, providing more information than stylized questions or experiential sampling studies. The “heart of the diary,” is a verbatim accounting of a day’s activities, including when the activity began and ended (Stinson 1999). The nature of the diaries also allows for respondents to report if they are engaged in more than one activity at a time, designating what the most important activity was during that time frame. (Robinson 2000). Time diaries may also ask for details on where the activity occurred, and who else was present during the activity.
There are different methods of administering time diaries. The first consists of a paper diary left behind for the respondent to complete after an initial face-to-face interview. With paper diaries, the 24-hour reference period is usually the day after the interview; interviewers then visit the household again to check and collect the diaries. Time diaries may also be collected via a computer-assisted telephone interview; in this case the 24-hour reference period consists of a retrospective accounting of “yesterday’s” activities.
Studies that have compared the different methods of administering time diaries have found that the method makes little difference in terms of the quality of the data. This finding propelled the shift from paper “tomorrow” diaries to “yesterday” diaries collected via computer-assisted telephone interviews (Juster 1985; Juster and Stafford 1991; Robinson and Godbey 1999; Stinson 1999). Robinson (1985) assessed the reliability of time diary estimates in three ways: 1) by comparing diary entries from the 788 Jackson, Michigan respondents who formed a sub-sample of the 1965-66 Americans’ Use of Time Project, to diary entries from the 1,244 respondents who comprised the national 1965-66 sample; 2) by comparing diary estimates from 1965-66 respondent yesterday diaries and tomorrow diaries; and 3) by comparing diary estimates from the 1965-66 sample to diary estimates from Walker’s (1969) 1968-69 study conducted in Upstate New York, and Chapin’s (1974) 1968-69 study conducted in the Washington D.C. area. Robinson (1985) reports substantial similarity in time use patterns for all three comparisons, although the tomorrow diaries did include between 5 to 10 percent more activities as compared to the yesterday diaries.
3) The experience sampling method (ESM):
ESM studies randomly beep or page respondents multiple times per day; respondents then report what activity they were involved in, and typically also report who else was present during the activity, and what they were thinking or feeling during the activity. ESM studies may continue over the period of one day, a week, or months (National Research Council 2000). ESM requires a very large sample to yield generalizable results, does not provide information on an individual’s total allocation of time use, and is more costly than other methods.
4) Direct observation:
Direct observation, while offering a more “dynamic” accounting of time use, is intrusive, and generally covers only a small, non-random sample of individuals.
The latter two methods may provide more accurate, objective reports of time use because they do not rely on the respondent’s memory of activities; however, both are used infrequently. Consequently, stylized questions and time diaries are the more common methods for assessing time use (Juster 1985; Robinson and Godbey 1999).
Direct observation, while offering a more “dynamic” accounting of time use, is intrusive, and generally covers only a small, non-random sample of individuals.
The latter two methods may provide more accurate, objective reports of time use because they do not rely on the respondent’s memory of activities; however, both are used infrequently. Consequently, stylized questions and time diaries are the more common methods for assessing time use (Juster 1985; Robinson and Godbey 1999).
